Amendment promises more moola for rural roads. Probably. Maybe
Some people from the Minnesotans for Better Roads and Transit dropped by today to meet with the Herald editorial board and the City Beat sat in — for fun.
I think they won the board over with promises that rural Minnesota would benefit from the amendment, which would dedicate 100 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax to transportation. Currently, only 54 percent goes to transportation.
Margaret Donahue, an MBRT member, dropped some exciting numbers.
Eleven Northwestern Minnesota counties that comprise District 2 currently get $36.8 million a year. If the amendment passes, they'll get $961,000 more in 2008 and, by the end of the five-year phase-in period in 2012, they'll be getting $4.2 million more. That's for county highways.
Northwest cities would get funding, too, for their streets.
It all looks pretty good except I'm told the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, which represents rural cities, is asking you to vote "no."
(I can't access the coalition's Web site — Some genius put in password protection for the whole site. Way to go with the PR effort. — so I'm relying on this news report.)
Anyway, the problem is with the wording. The amendment said at least 40 percent of the extra transportation funding would go to transit and no more than 60 percent would go to roads and bridges. Transit is a shorthand way of saying buses and trains. If you live in rural Minnesota, you know how important those are. Not. So the Greater Minnesota people are afraid the powerful Twin Cities electorate will get all the money and leave rural areas hanging. That's a huge fear among rural leaders because the metro population is growing but the rural population isn't.
MBRT people say there's gotta be a little give and take. Donahue said the Legislature would stick to the 60-40 split.
I don't live in Minnesota so this doesn't affect me. But, I've heard a lot of complaints from East Grand Forks leaders about how hard it was to get state funding to finish the dikes. Meaning, promises made this year aren't always fulfilled the next. As Donahue said, the amendment is necessary because the Legislature has failed to make enough funding available for transportation. Can't trust those guys, right?
Still, if there's gonna be a fight over funding, at least there's more of it to fight over.
What do you guys think?
I think they won the board over with promises that rural Minnesota would benefit from the amendment, which would dedicate 100 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax to transportation. Currently, only 54 percent goes to transportation.
Margaret Donahue, an MBRT member, dropped some exciting numbers.
Eleven Northwestern Minnesota counties that comprise District 2 currently get $36.8 million a year. If the amendment passes, they'll get $961,000 more in 2008 and, by the end of the five-year phase-in period in 2012, they'll be getting $4.2 million more. That's for county highways.
Northwest cities would get funding, too, for their streets.
| City | 2006 | 2008 | 2012 |
| Bemidji | $399,918 | +$11,289 | +$54,104 |
| Crookston | $451,355 | +$12,854 | +$61,608 |
| East Grand Forks | $368,003 | +$10,710 | +$51,329 |
| Thief River Falls | $450,552 | +$13,076 | +$62,670 |
It all looks pretty good except I'm told the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, which represents rural cities, is asking you to vote "no."
(I can't access the coalition's Web site — Some genius put in password protection for the whole site. Way to go with the PR effort. — so I'm relying on this news report.)
Anyway, the problem is with the wording. The amendment said at least 40 percent of the extra transportation funding would go to transit and no more than 60 percent would go to roads and bridges. Transit is a shorthand way of saying buses and trains. If you live in rural Minnesota, you know how important those are. Not. So the Greater Minnesota people are afraid the powerful Twin Cities electorate will get all the money and leave rural areas hanging. That's a huge fear among rural leaders because the metro population is growing but the rural population isn't.
MBRT people say there's gotta be a little give and take. Donahue said the Legislature would stick to the 60-40 split.
I don't live in Minnesota so this doesn't affect me. But, I've heard a lot of complaints from East Grand Forks leaders about how hard it was to get state funding to finish the dikes. Meaning, promises made this year aren't always fulfilled the next. As Donahue said, the amendment is necessary because the Legislature has failed to make enough funding available for transportation. Can't trust those guys, right?
Still, if there's gonna be a fight over funding, at least there's more of it to fight over.
What do you guys think?
posted by Tu-Uyen at 9:27 PM
7 Comments:
I think a trip to the Twin Cities will tell you where the bulk of the money goes every year.
If 46% of the current motor vehicle sales tax is going to things other than transportation, and that 46% is redirected to transportation, what will be left unfunded?
Will a different tax have to be increased to cover the shortfall?
Was this addressed in the Editorial Board meeting? Who asked it and what was the answer?
If they stick to their promises, it seems like there will be significantly more $ for rural highways, regardless of how much MORE goes to the Twin Cities. Sounds like everyone wins.
I know that Minnesota taxes are regarded as high, but look at what their tax policies have wrought: consistent population and job growth, clean air and high quality of life.
That doesn't come cheap.
Just curious, not trying to start anything...
Why are the terms "city" and "cities" used so much? G.F. and E.G.F. are towns. Bemidji, a "city"?
Really?
If 46% of the current motor vehicle sales tax is going to things other than transportation, and that 46% is redirected to transportation, what will be left unfunded?
The 46 percent now goes into the state's general fund, which means it's mingled with everything else so I can't really say where it goes. It probably keeps the other taxes down.
The ed board did ask how the state will make up for it. The answer was that it shouldn't be that hard because the 46 percent is only about 1 percent or so of the total state budget. But how to make up that 1 percent is, I guess, up to the Legislature.
Why are the terms "city" and "cities" used so much? G.F. and E.G.F. are towns. Bemidji, a "city"?
GF, EGF, Bemidji, Crookston, TRF: All cities as far as our region is concerned. It's all relative. In Seattle, Fargo would be a 'burb but here it's a metro.
The Coalition of Minnesota Cities is a "Fat Cat" lobbiest a.k.a. Tim Flarehty feeding off the fear of small cities (towns). I wouldn't take his advice if I was drowning and he threw me a life preserver. By the way he lives in the Twin Cities and gets his money from rural Minnesota...what does that tell you?
You'll notice from the news report that the League of Minnesota Cities is also alarmed.
As for living in the Twin Cities. Where do you expect a lobbyist to live? Five hours away from the capital?
Post a Comment
<< Home